Balancing, Countering & Competitive Play
Runteh
Join Date: 2010-06-26 Member: 72163Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2010-06-26 Member: 72163Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">Statistics based balancing.</div>I love watching the development of this game, but I am concerned about how things are being balanced based on what seems to be RTS statistics rather than the creativity of FPS play. I understand the idea of 'no hard counters', but feel the lack of countering will actually damage competitive play, and therefore the game as a whole.
This is partly a response to the sentry thread that 'Cee Colon Slash' posted, and the response we have had about sentrys being 'anti structure only from now on' which is quite bewildering. But it is also a dissection of why countering is SO important in an RTS/FPS.
Honestly, I don't care if sentrys are in and out. Just that every piece of tech has a use and purpose to make for a more dynamic and successful game. I have posted many ideas based on this principle already, but wanted to post this so people have an idea of where I am coming from.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=121017" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=121017</a>
-----
To me, having no counters basically equates to each team throwing numbers at each other rather than beating each other strategically or tactically. It has been mentioned on several occasions that there will be no 'hard counters', but this seems to have knocked the idea of 'counters' off the table as well. Not that counters do not exist in some of the tech in NS2, but that they are being under looked in areas they are currently working really well.
What are meant by counters? Well, the PG is a great example. You can teleport to the other side of the map to counter alien movement speed, and is arguably the marines most successful tool. The issue? You can strand marines far away from base and end games because of this. You could possibly argue that this is a hard counter, given the scenario of a power node in your base being destroyed. The power node is very much so a hard counter in its being, but I like all of these things and how exciting these moments are in clan matches.
Of an example of why counters are important to make for a dynamic game that works at the RTS level, Take a look at CS. Undeniably a great game. I played in the CS competitive scene at a reasonably high level, attended lans, played some of the UKs best clans at the time (2002/03).
But only a few weapons were ever used competitively (Pistols / Dessert Eagle / AK / Colt / AWP / MP5 / Grenades).
Why was nothing else really used? Because this was the MOST efficient use of tech to cost and success over time. Why buy anything else?
AWPs prevented rushes or movement through the level, the grenades either killed or blinded those using weapons amongst other uses. MP5s were great because of their accuracy on the move. But of their class and roles, no other weapons did a better job.
To summarise, the rest was positioning, communication, use of sound and plain skill.
This is exactly what we have seen in competitive play recently in NS2, teams will dissect the game and the most efficient weapons based on cost and damage/success over time will be researched.
The route to success is found and repeated, because it works. This will always happen without successful countering options.
As a good example of sentrys working, Look at TF2 (actually think of how every unit works in relation to one another). PC gamers love this 'counter' style play, it is puzzles, positioning, execution. Not just 'damage vs damage'. You have to take advantage and play differently with every unit.
I've never or rarely heard complaint about use of sentries in TF2. Why are they a good example? Because they are effective, they work. But, they can be countered.
The spy counters it, the uber can be used to counter it, but they still have to WORK to counter it. It just takes longer. But once countered, it causes an imbalance that you either survive or repel.
Every role in the game has a strength, but then an undeniable weakness and purpose. Therefore, you have multiple routes or choices that all inevitably help to win the game and are all beneficial.
Sometimes an ubered pyro can break the deadlock to allow the team to progress past a sentry, or maybe a quick but weak scout can - between spawn waves - cap the last point.
But counters work to make for a more varied game both strategically and tactically.
I have really enjoyed watching the tournaments recently, but it is clear that the same strategies are going to become more and more tired. Take the recent Veil matches recently that saw plays copied and pasted. It is very similar to how efficient CS became.
However, CS was successful because of the round based system. A new round every three minutes kept things fresh. It allowed for teams to re-think their tactics based on previous rounds. You'd see openings from the positioning in the map, you'd recognise weak players and take advantage of them. You'd see their reactions and fake grenade rushes into the bombsites. You had time to discuss strategy between rounds and reflect upon them, and anyone who has played CS competitively will understand these facts.
Are people going to want to watch the same strategies play out over 20-30 minutes in NS2 where the teams player skill defines the ultimate bar where these same tactics are played out over and over because of limited options? I am dubious.
Counter style game play is needed for there to be variance in tactics and strategy that will actually add to the RTS/FPS aspect more than it will ever take away.
I know this is beta, but there has been plenty of opportunity to trial various more radical ways of balancing the tech that we haven't seen yet. There are also some great examples of things that do work really well (PG) as counter style tech that has not been applied to other areas of the game.
This is partly a response to the sentry thread that 'Cee Colon Slash' posted, and the response we have had about sentrys being 'anti structure only from now on' which is quite bewildering. But it is also a dissection of why countering is SO important in an RTS/FPS.
Honestly, I don't care if sentrys are in and out. Just that every piece of tech has a use and purpose to make for a more dynamic and successful game. I have posted many ideas based on this principle already, but wanted to post this so people have an idea of where I am coming from.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=121017" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=121017</a>
-----
To me, having no counters basically equates to each team throwing numbers at each other rather than beating each other strategically or tactically. It has been mentioned on several occasions that there will be no 'hard counters', but this seems to have knocked the idea of 'counters' off the table as well. Not that counters do not exist in some of the tech in NS2, but that they are being under looked in areas they are currently working really well.
What are meant by counters? Well, the PG is a great example. You can teleport to the other side of the map to counter alien movement speed, and is arguably the marines most successful tool. The issue? You can strand marines far away from base and end games because of this. You could possibly argue that this is a hard counter, given the scenario of a power node in your base being destroyed. The power node is very much so a hard counter in its being, but I like all of these things and how exciting these moments are in clan matches.
Of an example of why counters are important to make for a dynamic game that works at the RTS level, Take a look at CS. Undeniably a great game. I played in the CS competitive scene at a reasonably high level, attended lans, played some of the UKs best clans at the time (2002/03).
But only a few weapons were ever used competitively (Pistols / Dessert Eagle / AK / Colt / AWP / MP5 / Grenades).
Why was nothing else really used? Because this was the MOST efficient use of tech to cost and success over time. Why buy anything else?
AWPs prevented rushes or movement through the level, the grenades either killed or blinded those using weapons amongst other uses. MP5s were great because of their accuracy on the move. But of their class and roles, no other weapons did a better job.
To summarise, the rest was positioning, communication, use of sound and plain skill.
This is exactly what we have seen in competitive play recently in NS2, teams will dissect the game and the most efficient weapons based on cost and damage/success over time will be researched.
The route to success is found and repeated, because it works. This will always happen without successful countering options.
As a good example of sentrys working, Look at TF2 (actually think of how every unit works in relation to one another). PC gamers love this 'counter' style play, it is puzzles, positioning, execution. Not just 'damage vs damage'. You have to take advantage and play differently with every unit.
I've never or rarely heard complaint about use of sentries in TF2. Why are they a good example? Because they are effective, they work. But, they can be countered.
The spy counters it, the uber can be used to counter it, but they still have to WORK to counter it. It just takes longer. But once countered, it causes an imbalance that you either survive or repel.
Every role in the game has a strength, but then an undeniable weakness and purpose. Therefore, you have multiple routes or choices that all inevitably help to win the game and are all beneficial.
Sometimes an ubered pyro can break the deadlock to allow the team to progress past a sentry, or maybe a quick but weak scout can - between spawn waves - cap the last point.
But counters work to make for a more varied game both strategically and tactically.
I have really enjoyed watching the tournaments recently, but it is clear that the same strategies are going to become more and more tired. Take the recent Veil matches recently that saw plays copied and pasted. It is very similar to how efficient CS became.
However, CS was successful because of the round based system. A new round every three minutes kept things fresh. It allowed for teams to re-think their tactics based on previous rounds. You'd see openings from the positioning in the map, you'd recognise weak players and take advantage of them. You'd see their reactions and fake grenade rushes into the bombsites. You had time to discuss strategy between rounds and reflect upon them, and anyone who has played CS competitively will understand these facts.
Are people going to want to watch the same strategies play out over 20-30 minutes in NS2 where the teams player skill defines the ultimate bar where these same tactics are played out over and over because of limited options? I am dubious.
Counter style game play is needed for there to be variance in tactics and strategy that will actually add to the RTS/FPS aspect more than it will ever take away.
I know this is beta, but there has been plenty of opportunity to trial various more radical ways of balancing the tech that we haven't seen yet. There are also some great examples of things that do work really well (PG) as counter style tech that has not been applied to other areas of the game.
Comments
As for counters, there are counts but they are more for the marine side imho. Shotguns counter.... everything? Jetpacks are a very strong counter to onos and a lesser counter vs fade and skulk. Arcs counter static emplacements. As for aliens you have whips which should counter GLs but totally fail in that job, onos stomp which counters footsoldiers and thats about it. I do believe that the game needs more of an emphasis on commander/strategy influence but in order for that the be the case khamm needs a massive amount of work first, currently a good comm can heavily influence engagements with scans, macs, nanos, hp and ammo drops. Khamm can hope his buildings were prebuilt in the right spots, try get an enzyme off and hope they are on infestation so he can spikes the marines apart for a few seconds.
Because of this the overriding decider is in the shooter aspect, the strategy can help slightly but its more a case of your commander can lose you the game but not often win it. Thats why comm in pubs is such a chore to so many people imho.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, I don't care if sentrys are in and out. Just that every piece of tech has a use and purpose to make for a more dynamic and successful game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course everything in the game has a use. That doesn't mean there can't be niche roles, or really polarized ones. One of the most benign ways to have lots of mechanics is to make sure very few of them are fundamental/commonplace, and the majority are situational or have steep tradeoffs.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To me, having no counters basically equates to each team throwing numbers at each other rather than beating each other strategically or tactically. It has been mentioned on several occasions that there will be no 'hard counters', but this seems to have knocked the idea of 'counters' off the table as well. Not that counters do not exist in some of the tech in NS2, but that they are being under looked in areas they are currently working really well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a tricky topic. It's not possible for the game to "not have" counters. I really don't think it's something to strive for, and if the developers are trying it won't bear fruit....unless they turn the game into 'rock-em-sock-em robots'
However, 'strategy and tactics' doesn't have to mean "using blindingly obvious relationships that are hardcoded into the game" - the legacy of games like Starcraft and Quake is that the relationships in the game mechanics are always secondary to really simple, highly-developed player skill. The railgun 'counters' everything at long range in quake, but it's just as important as the other major weapons, and railgun style is one of the defining traits of any pro player (all of whom are successful). Some people have amazing railgun play, and some do not, but they all win despite this. The dark templar 'counters' a zerg base that doesn't have detection, but <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY3Rn0Q-zqI" target="_blank">even that can be overcome</a> with clever play.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What are meant by counters? Well, the PG is a great example. You can teleport to the other side of the map to counter alien movement speed, and is arguably the marines most successful tool. The issue? You can strand marines far away from base and end games because of this. You could possibly argue that this is a hard counter, given the scenario of a power node in your base being destroyed. The power node is very much so a hard counter in its being, but I like all of these things and how exciting these moments are in clan matches.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In traditional terms, I don't think these things are counters (let alone hard counters). PGs let you compete with alien movement, but they don't always render alien movement ineffective or make it impossible. They don't stop all alien movement. A hard counter to movement has to be something like fungal growth/stasis in starcraft, or the flamethrower energy drain effect in ns2. This is actually a good example of NS not being about strict counter relationships - it's obvious the PG has something to do with movement, but it doesn't do enough for you that you could map it to a rock-paper-scissors relationship with the aliens. There's much more variability in how you use it than, say, a dark templar cheese in SC2 (where you attack several key targets to force a checkmate situation, and can't spend time doing anything else or it fails)
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of an example of why counters are important to make for a dynamic game that works at the RTS level, Take a look at CS. Undeniably a great game. I played in the CS competitive scene at a reasonably high level, attended lans, played some of the UKs best clans at the time (2002/03).
But only a few weapons were ever used competitively (Pistols / Dessert Eagle / AK / Colt / AWP / MP5 / Grenades).
Why was nothing else really used? Because this was the MOST efficient use of tech to cost and success over time. Why buy anything else?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is actually one of the strengths of CS. At the very highest levels of play, the game is so stripped down that what matters is how you think, how you coordinate as a team, how you aim, your reflexes and so on. No one's going to lose because the opponent bought the super special counter rifle even though they were massively outplayed in every other respect (there's a very low skill ceiling on spending money).
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->AWPs prevented rushes or movement through the level, the grenades either killed or blinded those using weapons amongst other uses. MP5s were great because of their accuracy on the move. But of their class and roles, no other weapons did a better job.
To summarise, the rest was positioning, communication, use of sound and plain skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly! "Plain skill" is what you should strive for in designing a competitive game. Any other way of winning is simply a cheap shortcut masquerading as an intellectual decision. In putting together a game like NS2, things should be in their most minimal form until that is working perfectly (consider CS with only mp5/deagle/m4). Once you have that working, you can start adding more complicated things and create more polarized roles.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is exactly what we have seen in competitive play recently in NS2, teams will dissect the game and the most efficient weapons based on cost and damage/success over time will be researched.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. This game has LOADS of cutesy mechanics, but most of them aren't viable in a competitive sense, because they're too weak (not useful to the person employing them) or too strong and easy to use (ethically grey in competition).
The point of being a competitive player is that you dissect a game in this way. You have to know every detail, and be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. This happens in other competitions as well. Kasparov wants to always make the optimal next move, Kobayashi doesn't play with his food and so on.
The goal for NS2 should be to have games play out similarly each time, so that players and spectators can have some base understanding to work with. A game like Total Annihilation simply has too many units to ever succeed like CS, Quake or Starcraft have.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The route to success is found and repeated, because it works. This will always happen without successful countering options.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It should happen even <i>with </i>'countering options'. Counters should be things like dark shrines in starcraft, ambushing/camping in FPS games, range limitations (LG vs railgun in quake). They should be 'scoutable' - the opponent can become aware that they will be employed, and make an attempt to play against it.
Part of competing in Starcraft and optimizing your play is that you have to safeguard yourself against cute risky strategies from the opponent. None of the top SC2 players will die to a DT rush, unless it's being performed in a very developed and skillful way (hiding buildings, faking information to the opponent, perfect timing and overall execution etc). It should be the same in NS2 - you can go for an early shade play based on cloaking, but it shouldn't be difficult to stop it by setting up an observatory and turtling until you can push against the aliens who don't have the more general-purpose crag/shift upgrades to help them.
In a game like Quake, Starcraft or NS, the burden should always be on the person using the polarized strategy (or counter) to make it work, or suffer the consequences.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a good example of sentrys working, Look at TF2 (actually think of how every unit works in relation to one another). PC gamers love this 'counter' style play, it is puzzles, positioning, execution. Not just 'damage vs damage'. You have to take advantage and play differently with every unit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, every competitive TF2 player hates the sentry and the engineer without exception. Even when they tried to class it up with the gunslinger, that was found repeatedly to be overpowered in both competitive formats.
The class is a perfect example of something that employs the idea of 'counters' poorly: it takes the least practice and effort to use of anything in the game, and it shuts down the classes that take the most effort and control to be played well (mainly the scout).
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've never or rarely heard complaint about use of sentries in TF2. Why are they a good example? Because they are effective, they work. But, they can be countered.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, take a look at competitive play. Nobody will complain about sentries in a pub because the entire game relies on them to present the way it has for so many years (30 people on goldrush grinding against a hallway). When you boil TF2 down to its bare essentials, and remove all the things that make it difficult to take seriously as a competition, you remove or de-emphasize things like sentries, heavies, natascha, the sandman and so on. They 'counter' things in such a way that the opponent wants to uninstall TF2 afterward.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The spy counters it, the uber can be used to counter it, but they still have to WORK to counter it. It just takes longer. But once countered, it causes an imbalance that you either survive or repel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a much deeper topic than it seems like. An uber doesn't "counter" sentries just because it lets you kill them. In fact, the engineer's team is still winning that situation (because you just wasted the single most powerful thing in the game to kill a roadblock that can be rebuilt in a minute if you don't push very far ahead right now). For spies, it's also not as clear-cut as it seems. In a competitive game, teams will almost never field a spy specifically to attack an engineer, because the spy is so much more fragile and difficult to apply than any other class. In a 6v6 match, sapping a sentry doesn't mean your team gets to plow through unabated, and you'll almost never get to stab the engineer or headshot him.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every role in the game has a strength, but then an undeniable weakness and purpose. Therefore, you have multiple routes or choices that all inevitably help to win the game and are all beneficial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly. Everything in TF2 <i>can </i>work, but most of it is very, very situational or blatantly relies on a large skill gap between players. As an example, consider the Direct Hit. On the surface, it looks like a really cool weapon. In practice, it's not. In exchange for "doing slightly more damage to rocketjumping opponents", you lose the ability to use splash damage at mid range, and you will essentially never hit a scout as he's killing you and your medic. It's an extremely polarized weapon, and it hardly ever gets used in competition because of this - it "counters" things, but the price is too great, and "countering" things isn't the focus when the game has been boiled down to more pure skills.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have really enjoyed watching the tournaments recently, but it is clear that the same strategies are going to become more and more tired. Take the recent Veil matches recently that saw plays copied and pasted. It is very similar to how efficient CS became.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me, this is a good thing. When I watch an NS2 match, I don't want to see someone win because they used cloak and the other team screwed up and ran out of scans. I want to see great aim, great positioning, great scouting, perfect reactions and that kind of thing. None of those exist in any team's tech tree, and you can't buy them with resources. That's what makes competition exciting for me.
<!--quoteo(post=1979518:date=Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 18 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1979518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, CS was successful because of the round based system. A new round every three minutes kept things fresh. It allowed for teams to re-think their tactics based on previous rounds. You'd see openings from the positioning in the map, you'd recognise weak players and take advantage of them. You'd see their reactions and fake grenade rushes into the bombsites. You had time to discuss strategy between rounds and reflect upon them, and anyone who has played CS competitively will understand these facts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the same in Starcraft, Quake, NS and so on also. The rounds are just longer. Instead of adjusting which part of "the same map" you use, a lot of it comes into map choices for 2nd/3rd/Nth games, and that kind of thing. Players will choose a specific map because they have a strategy for it, or they're strong on it statistically, or they don't like another map. Again, these are things that depend on the player and not on the rules of the game itself. It's about how they've developed relative to their opponent, and how the two clash.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To me, this is a good thing. When I watch an NS2 match, I don't want to see someone win because they used cloak and the other team screwed up and ran out of scans. I want to see great aim, great positioning, great scouting, perfect reactions and that kind of thing. None of those exist in any team's tech tree, and you can't buy them with resources. That's what makes competition exciting for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree in part, but I also think the games just became boring to watch after a while. When I watch other FPS games I often sit back in awe of the players abilities when they pull off a crazy sick shot etc. That doesn't happen in ns2. The skill ceiling for many classes is so low that you can't really pull of anything amazing. I never really felt like the outcome of battles was due to individual skill. It is more to do with teamwork, timing and luck. For me that is just not as interesting to watch. Every game will eventually play out very similarly and there won't be much to keep me watching. I really wish that the players ability was the limit rather than limitations within the game, but I doubt that will ever happen for a game like ns2.